Advertisement

Approximation Results for Kinetic Variants of TSP

  • Mikael Hammar
  • Bengt J. Nilsson
Conference paper
Part of the Lecture Notes in Computer Science book series (LNCS, volume 1644)

Abstract

We study the approximation complexity of certain kinetic variants of the Traveling Salesman Problem where we consider instances in which each point moves with a fixed constant speed in a fixed direction. We prove the following results.
  1. 1.

    If the points all move with the same velocity, then there is a PTAS for the Kinetic TSP.

     
  2. 2.

    The Kinetic TSP cannot be approximated better than by a factor of two by a polynomial time algorithm unless P=NP, even if there are only two moving points in the instance.

     
  3. 3.

    The Kinetic TSP cannot be approximated better than by a factor of \( 2^{\Omega \left( {\sqrt n } \right)} \) by a polynomial time algorithm unless P=NP, even if the maximum velocity is bounded. The n denotes the size of the input instance.

     

Especially the last result is surprising in the light of existing polynomial time approximation schemes for the static version of the problem.

Keywords

Approximation Ratio Travel Salesman Problem Euclidean Plane Hamiltonian Path Kinetic Variant 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. [1]
    S. Arora. iPolynomial time approximation schemes for Euclidean TSP and other geometric problems. In Proc. 37th Annual Symposium on Foundations of Computer Science (FOCS), pages 2–11, 1996.Google Scholar
  2. [2]
    S. Arora. Polynomial time approximation schemes for Euclidean TSP and other geometric problems. Manuscript, 1997.Google Scholar
  3. [3]
    P. Chalasani and R. Motwani. Approximating capacitated routing and delivery problems. Technical Report STAN-CS-TN-95-24, Department of Computer Science, Stanford University, 1995.Google Scholar
  4. [4]
    P. Chalasani, R. Motwani, and A. Rao. Approximation algorithms for robot grasp and delivery. In Proceedings of the 2nd International Workshop on Algorithmic Foundations of Robotics, pages 347–362, 1996.Google Scholar
  5. [5]
    M.R. Garey, R.L. Graham, and D.S. Johnson. Some NP-complete geometric problems. In Proc. 8th Annual ACM Symposium on Theory of Computing, pages 10–21, 1976.Google Scholar
  6. [6]
    C.S. Helvig, G. Robins, and A. Zelikovsky. Moving-target TSP and related problems. In Proc. 6th Annual European Symposium on Algorithms (ESA), 1998.Google Scholar
  7. [7]
    E.L. Lawler, J.K. Lenstra, A.H.G. Rinnooy Kan, and D.B. Shmoys. The TRAVELING SALESMAN PROBLEM, A Guided Tour of Combinatorial Optimization. John Wiley & Sons Ltd., 1985.Google Scholar
  8. [8]
    J.S.B. Mitchell. Guillotine subdivisions approximate polygonal subdivisions: Part II-a simple polynomial-time approximation scheme for geometric TSP, k-MST, and related problems. To appear in SIAM J. Computing.Google Scholar
  9. [9]
    S.B. Rao and W.D. Smith. Approximating geometrical graphs via “spanners” and “banyans”. In STOC, pages 540–550, 1998.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 1999

Authors and Affiliations

  • Mikael Hammar
    • 1
  • Bengt J. Nilsson
    • 1
  1. 1.Department of Computer ScienceLund UniversityLundSweden

Personalised recommendations